it was never 100% the case, RSL, in Russia... and more over "soon" after the revolution... not even soon after the end of the civil war... unless you are talking about mass manufacturing and things that require actually some form of factory to be manufactured

Ah, so nothing technical then, like a text on political theory or something. Jut a dictionary.

Quote

Glad to do it. The socialists he sent to death camps were Russian communists.

And German socialists.

Quote

Do you actually believe that the Nazis weren't socialists? Check the definition again in your dictionary. Any dictionary.

Again, not exactly a technical source.

Anyway, can you understand the difference between the socialist idea of workers controlling the means of production, and the state doing so? And can you imagine how the workers might control the means of production without democracy? Do you understand the difference between democracy & oligarchy & plutocracy? Socialism & state capitalism?

Anyway, what any of this has to do with crappy Republican Party Photoshopping I don't quite understand.

Ah, so nothing technical then, like a text on political theory or something. Jut a dictionary.

What does technology have to do with it? It's the meaning of the word. It's like the word "human," Bill, it's a word. It has a specific definition, which one ordinarily finds in a dictionary.

Quote

And German socialists.

Well, I won't argue with you, Bill. The madman sent all sorts of people -- anybody he didn't like for any reason -- to death camps. But if you're going to make that kind of statement it would be useful to have a reference to a source. I gave you a reference to the meaning of "Nazi:" Any dictionary or any encyclopedia.

Quote

Again, not exactly a technical source.

The dictionary isn't a "technical" source for anything except the definitions of words. You're certainly entitled to your own ideas and biases, but you're not entitled to your own definitions of common words.

Quote

Anyway, can you understand the difference between the socialist idea of workers controlling the means of production, and the state doing so? And can you imagine how the workers might control the means of production without democracy? Do you understand the difference between democracy & oligarchy & plutocracy? Socialism & state capitalism?

Yes, Bill. It's a theory that's been around for a long time, at least since Marx expounded the labor theory of value in Das Kapital, but there's never been a case in history where "workers" actually controlled the means of production. For that to happen the state would have to "wither away," as visualized in communist propaganda, but it's never happened, and never will. For production to take place you need somebody in charge. That can be somebody who wants to produce something worthwhile and make a buck, or it can be a commissar who wants to control people. And I'm not into semantic games, so I'll let the last part of that paragraph float on by.

Quote

Anyway, what any of this has to do with crappy Republican Party Photoshopping I don't quite understand.

We finally agree. But how do you know the Republican party did the crappy Photoshopping? Can you point me to a reference? It's a sloppy enough job that it might have been a liberal in the corner print shop.

it was never 100% the case, RSL, in Russia... and more over "soon" after the revolution... not even soon after the end of the civil war... unless you are talking about mass manufacturing and things that require actually some form of factory to be manufactured

Right, Alphabet, it's never 100%, and if you look back and force yourself to read carefully you'll see that in the post to which you refer I was careful to qualify my statement. And you're right, the final takeover was after the civil war. Yes, I'm talking about manufacturing, but I'm also talking about agriculture. Beyond that, except for the Kulaks, who were murdered, I'm sure there were people with vegetable plots next to their houses, as they tried to survive the disaster the Communists had brought upon them. That was about the only free enterprise left.

... there's never been a case in history where "workers" actually controlled the means of production...

I know I am entering a minefield of semantic hairsplitting of each term used above, but the closest case to it was in (former) Yugoslavia, where workers/employees managed their factories/places of work ever since the break-up with the Soviet ideology in the fifties. There was no central planning, no state-appointed "commissars," no state property. It was basically a market economy, which also allowed fully private property for small businesses. Citizens were free to travel to the West, to have full access to the Western sources of information, keep their savings in hard currency in banks, learn both Marxist and absolutely identical economic theories to the ones taught in the West during college education. I know that for sure because I passed my exam in Microeconomics at the #1 business school in the world (according to The Economist's latest ranking) and I could have used my old textbook from the Belgrade University to prepare for it just as well.

None of the above is meant to argue any superiority of the said system, just to point out to Russ that such a system did exist.

I don't doubt it, Slobodan, but I also know that somebody was in charge at each factory. It may have been somebody chosen by the employees, but somebody has to make the decisions, even though the decisions might have to be reviewed by a group before they're accepted. You know that as well as I do. The other point is that the factories pre-existed the takeover by the workers. It wasn't a case of entrepreneurs creating something new. I'd also bet, considering the inefficiencies of any government-run operation (the US Postal Service comes to mind) that a lot of those enterprises folded once they had actually to compete in an open market.

But I also have to tell you that I applaud what happened in Yugoslavia. It was a wonderful thing. But as you say, it was after the breakup of the Soviet ideology, which tells you something about socialism.

Your comparisons remain interesting. Despite being a democracy, I think South Korea exhibits socialist characteristics you'd despise as well. The "Race" of folks living in Korea share a lot of genetics, ethnicity and spirituality of those around the region, including Japan and a few other countries. What's happening in North Korea has little to do with socialism.

Hi Jen, You added this after I answered your first blast. I'd say that every country in the world "exhibits socialist characteristics" to a certain degree, but I'd say that South Korea is on the low side of the scale. As far as the relationship between what's happening in North Korea and socialism is concerned, who do you think owns or controls the means of production in North Korea? Yes, it's a dictatorship, and that accounts for most of the misery, so the pain socialism causes pretty much gets swallowed up in the murders and rapes. But it's still there.

Quote

What's the calibre of your favourite handgun again?

Well, when I was flying F84s in Korea it was a 38 cal. S&W Combat Masterpiece. When I was captain of the Richards-Gebaur AFB pistol team it was the 1911 ACP 45 cal. automatic. In Vietnam I carried the 1911 45 again, but I also carried an M16 for luck.

What does technology have to do with it? It's the meaning of the word. It's like the word "human," Bill, it's a word. It has a specific definition, which one ordinarily finds in a dictionary.

A common misconception, that dictionaries define words - they don't, they describe common usage

Quote

... I gave you a reference to the meaning of "Nazi:" Any dictionary or any encyclopedia ...

Well, it might be illuminating to see what Hitler thought the term meant, in the context of the Nazi party. He objected to its use, but when he took over the party, decided to keep it, but chose to define it to suit his own ends. 'Socialist' was taken to refer to a commitment to the community or volk, not socialism in the sense that it had been used in the Paris Commune, or 18th century Britain, or even by Marx or Engels. You want sources, try Christopher McNab's book on the Third Reich.

Quote

... You're certainly entitled to your own ideas and biases, but you're not entitled to your own definitions of common words.

Quite. Neither are you. But there is a world of difference between common usuage and informed, expert usuage. North Korea considers itself democratic - everyone votes, and the vote for the Glorious Leader, or else. But in the People's Republic, that's defined as democracy. I don't know about you, but that's not how I'd define it.

Quote

... It's a theory that's been around for a long time, at least since Marx expounded the labor theory of value in Das Kapital, but there's never been a case in history where "workers" actually controlled the means of production.

Every co-operative fits the bill. Not that workers controlling means of production is all there is to socialism, and it doesn't necessarily require such a thing for a system to be socialist. Whether it is market socialism, municipal socialism, social democracy, details vary, but the guiding principle is of greater equality of opportunity, participation in decision-making and so on. But you're right, there's never been a properly communist (according to Marx, that's a post-socialist) state. The Paris Commune probably came closest, but that was put down. Communist states have only ever been communist in name only, never communally governed, but rather totalitarian dictatorships.

Quote

... For production to take place you need somebody in charge. That can be somebody who wants to produce something worthwhile and make a buck, or it can be a commissar who wants to control people ...

Something of a false dichotomy. But enough with the politics, eh?

Let's hope the Pope has better Photoshop techies & that we never descend into the quagmire of religion

Robust discussion is good Russ, but there comes a time when it becomes clear that people are immovable and matters degrade to hostility. On a topic with little or no relevance to the craft we all are here for there seems little point to generating heat with no possibility of light.

You're right, Walter, but it happens again and again -- not just about politics, about anything controversial.

But from what I've seen in the past we all stay friends. One or two exceptions, including dalethorn, whom I mentioned in another post. Dale just plain lost it. If I get some time I'll go back and find a couple of his final posts before he was thrust into the darkness.

You're right, Walter, but it happens again and again -- not just about politics, about anything controversial.

But from what I've seen in the past we all stay friends. One or two exceptions, including dalethorn, whom I mentioned in another post. Dale just plain lost it. If I get some time I'll go back and find a couple of his final posts before he was thrust into the darkness.

That proves two things, I think:

1. We are still connected by the common love for photography;

2. We are probably old enough to realise that we are all products of where we come from, how we grow up, and also what we discover about ourselves on the journey.

Regardless of generated heat, I'd still be delighted to meet anyone here on the opposite side who might turn up on my patch and care to share a drink. Otherwise, if diifferences are allowed to rule relationships too far, we'd all be terribly isolated in this world.

Russ seems to be very good at attacking left leaning systems. To my mind it is a smokescreen. I would like him to try and defend the idiots, who are all capitalist and have brought most of the "advanced" countries to their knees through incompetence and greed. What would he do about the American bankers who started this crisis? Let them get on with repairing the system in the sure knowledge that it will happen again within the next twenty years or does he have a radical solution that will let us all prosper without any more crisis?

Russ seems to be very good at attacking left leaning systems. To my mind it is a smokescreen. I would like him to try and defend the idiots, who are all capitalist and have brought most of the "advanced" countries to their knees through incompetence and greed. What would he do about the American bankers who started this crisis? Let them get on with repairing the system in the sure knowledge that it will happen again within the next twenty years or does he have a radical solution that will let us all prosper without any more crisis?

Are the bankers the only cause of the crisis? What about the people that borrowed money from the banks under terms that were not possible for them to fulfill? I have not heard of any banker being convicted or even accused of forcing someone at gunpoint to accept the terms of their home loan. The same goes for the credit card companies. It always takes two to tango.

Do you have a radical solution that will let "us all" prosper without any more crises? Please share it if you do. I am sure that the financial world is all ears.

The financial world doesn't have any ears because they are consumed by greed. As to tangoing then it was the bankers responsibility not to lend to people who can't repay. Do you lend to everyone who asks you for something? No you make a decision on suitability.

That's a fine theory Stamper, and it's the way things used to be a few decades ago, but the banks were forced by a left-wing government to lend to people who didn't qualify for loans. There's plenty of blame to go around, and bankers, as well as the morons who packaged crappy loans into securities which then were given top ratings by the government-mandated rating agencies have to take some of it, but the root problem was a left-wing government mandate. I know the propaganda you read will never tell you about that, but if you do a bit of digging you can find the truth.